Re: [PATCH 1/2] drivers: cpuidle: remove stale irq disabling call in cpuidle_enter_freeze()

[Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>]

On 02/24/2015 06:58 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On return from cpuidle_enter_freeze() irqs are re-enabled by the function
> caller (ie cpuidle_idle_call) in the idle loop. This patch removes a stale
> local_irq_disable() call and its stale comment in cpuidle_enter_freeze(),
> since they disagree and do not serve a useful purpose.
>
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
> ---
>   drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c | 3 ---
>   1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
> index 4d53458..f47edc6c 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
> @@ -144,9 +144,6 @@ void cpuidle_enter_freeze(void)
>   		cpuidle_enter(drv, dev, index);
>   	else
>   		arch_cpu_idle();
> -
> -	/* Interrupts are enabled again here. */
> -	local_irq_disable();
>   }

Hmm, I think Rafael added this prevent lockdep to raise a warning.

Otherwise, cpuidle_enter or arch_cpu_idle enables the irq again and then 
when exiting the cpu_idle_call, we enable them again, so leading to a 
lockdep WARN in trace_hardirqs_on_caller.

That said, if we have to do this, it may reveal something is wrong in 
the code.


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog